You're conflating epistemology with ontology there, unless you're an idealist. Are you an idealist? — numberjohnny5
A human arm can be attached or detached from the rest of the human body. The arm itself hasn't changed — numberjohnny5
Are you therefore saying "mind" refers to will? — raza
The entire body is in the same "location" to exist. Remove the head the body also dies and vice versa. — raza
An actualist. An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza
Only either immediately or if it has been kept on ice.
Is a detached ear still an ear if it is re-attached surgically onto a leg (just to maintain blood supply to it)?
My point is about the use terms used to represent what is actually occurring rather than merely symbolic language.
An ear attached to a leg is no longer an ear. It has lost it's "ear" function. — raza
Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting upon those experiences. — numberjohnny5
I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brain — numberjohnny5
What do you mean "act upon"? Surely a thought perceived is always "acted upon". The act could be a dismissive action. — raza
Are arising thoughts therefore "nonconscious brain states" due to the fact they arise involuntarily? — raza
Thoughts arise involuntarily, do they not? — raza
No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza
I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this? — Pattern-chaser
That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say "actualist", but that rather sounds like an idealist position — numberjohnny5
Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an arm even if its past functioning has stopped, because the criteria for being an arm to one might not involve or include arm functionality. — numberjohnny5
Trying to find a label or box for myself is not something which interests me.
My words are my words. — raza
For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act upon that sensation consequently, but that's not what I'm referring to here. — numberjohnny5
We need to do it to survive. But we can be aware that we're doing it, and realise that labels aren't the thing that they're labelling. — numberjohnny5
One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurring — numberjohnny5
This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand? — Pattern-chaser
Now the discussion is reaching an appropriate level. Not being able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the world is classified as a serious mental disease. Maybe you should see a doctor.I bet it's creation takes up most of your time. — raza
An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza
That's conflating epistemology with ontology. — numberjohnny5
All you have done here is used a category as a point on a spectrum. "Passive" is merely a point on a spectrum, the entire spectrum being "action". — raza
What is interesting is that people, maybe you included, identify themselves as a thinker of thoughts.
However, As we have established, thoughts are involuntary — raza
What is it, though, that is surviving? — raza
All these survival applications will still be involuntary because it will involve acts that were generated by thoughts which involuntarily arose. — raza
My argument is that one is what is occurring.
It is impossible to be one without what is occurring and it is impossible for there to be any occurrence without one. — raza
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.